PDA

View Full Version : From Andrew Scecliano (SP)



ABADays
01-28-2008, 09:48 PM
He just stated that David Harrison went on radio in Indy and stated marijuana helped living in a polluted city like Indianapolis. Is this true? If it is this A-hole needs to go. He is really, really, really pushing his luck.

idioteque
01-28-2008, 09:53 PM
Who is Andrew Scecliano?

Harrison has obviously never left the United States if he thinks Indianapolis is a polluted city.

He is a problem time and time again and this is a statement the fans could take personally. GET HIM OUT OF HERE IMMEDIATELY. Player-fan relations are bad enough as it is.

ABADays
01-28-2008, 09:55 PM
AS is late Fox sports on the radio

Ownagedood
01-28-2008, 09:55 PM
He just stated that David Harrison went on radio in Indy and stated marijuana helped living in a polluted city like Indianapolis. Is this true? If it is this A-hole needs to go. He is really, really, really pushing his luck.
Indy isn't bad at all.. I guess Colorado is "perfect".. Plus, how would he know?? He's always high.. He's the one polluting the air.

Natston
01-28-2008, 09:55 PM
Who is Andrew Scecliano?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Siciliano

Shade
01-28-2008, 10:12 PM
He just stated that David Harrison went on radio in Indy and stated marijuana helped living in a polluted city like Indianapolis. Is this true? If it is this A-hole needs to go. He is really, really, really pushing his luck.

Helped, past tense? Is Harrison no longer here?

jeffg-body
01-28-2008, 10:46 PM
It seems to be so polluted because of that smoke cloud always lingering around his head?

OnlyPacersLeft
01-28-2008, 10:47 PM
harrison...what a moron. Have you heard the stories about this clown from his days at colorado? uhg.
And i bet he did say it like that....helped as in he's gone...lol moron

Trader Joe
01-28-2008, 10:49 PM
Bahahahahaha. I'm not even gonna comment.

CableKC
01-28-2008, 10:50 PM
He just stated that David Harrison went on radio in Indy and stated marijuana helped living in a polluted city like Indianapolis. Is this true? If it is this A-hole needs to go. He is really, really, really pushing his luck.
Just to give Harrison the benefit of the doubt......did this guy hear the actual interview on Indy Radio himself and therefore is quoting what Harrison said?

or

Did he hear that Harrison said something like this on an Indy Radio station?

Also...what Indy Radio Station did he say this on?

Kofi
01-28-2008, 10:56 PM
This guy's a complete moron. A big dumb brat who grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth, and has little to no work ethic. I'd not only cut him, I'd make sure to publicly bash him too.

jmoney2584
01-28-2008, 10:58 PM
This guy's a complete moron. A big dumb brat who grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth, and has little to no work ethic. I'd not only cut him, I'd make sure to publicly bash him too.

aka give him the Kareem Rush treatment via Bernie Bickerstaff ;)

LG33
01-28-2008, 10:58 PM
Harrison has obviously never left the United States if he thinks Indianapolis is a polluted city.

Yeah, uh, it's still pretty polluted.
It might not be Mexico City, but bad is bad no matter how you slice it.

ABADays
01-28-2008, 11:05 PM
Yeah, uh, it's still pretty polluted.
It might not be Mexico City, but bad is bad no matter how you slice it.

Try New Delhi or Cairo.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-29-2008, 12:04 AM
I think David is a boob for many reasons. He is well read on this subject, I guess. Also, Indianapolis is the 9th most particle polluted city in the United States according to this (http://www.citymayors.com/environment/polluted_uscities.html) report by the American Lung Association.

Washington Post by Marc Kaufman---study finds no cancer-marijuana connection (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html)

Journal of the National Cancer Institute by Robert Ramer, Burkhard Hinz---Inhabition of Cancer Cell Invasion by Cannabinoids (http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/djm268v1)


Those people are probably pot heads though, right.

MagicRat
01-29-2008, 12:07 AM
This was during an interview on Kravitz's show on 1070. A link to the audio is posted in the other thread......

Naptown_Seth
01-29-2008, 12:19 AM
Indy is a pretty polluted city, and unfortunately a little dull and conservative.

What's that got to do with smoking pot during the season after 2 warnings from the league AND with the final year of your contract about to expire and little hope of hitting the jackpot for the real NBA bucks?

Get your act together during the season and you could make playing in Indy for 10+ years pay for a condo in Hawaii, a home in Phoenix AND the mountains of Colorado, plus yearly trips to Alaska just to get your mind right. Get high all you want in those places during the offseason.

Priorities...Dave don't have them.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-29-2008, 12:23 AM
Indy is a pretty polluted city, and unfortunately a little dull and conservative.

What's that got to do with smoking pot during the season after 2 warnings from the league AND with the final year of your contract about to expire and little hope of hitting the jackpot for the real NBA bucks?

Get your act together during the season and you could make playing in Indy for 10+ years pay for a condo in Hawaii, a home in Phoenix AND the mountains of Colorado, plus yearly trips to Alaska just to get your mind right. Get high all you want in those places during the offseason.

Priorities...Dave don't have them.

I do agree with this point of view. I was just pointing out that these particular statements from Harrison aren't the reason I consider him a nutjob.

Shade
01-29-2008, 01:03 AM
Harrison is just extremely immature, and honestly has no business in the NBA at all.

I'm glad he's being such a fool right now, as it drastically decreases the chances of us attempting to re-sign him after the season.

high school hero
01-29-2008, 06:45 PM
I wanted to post the first part of the article linked below, because I'm sure many of you won't want to read it. I'm not saying I agree with David speaking out the way he did, and I'm not saying I disagree, but I'd like to know how many of you smoke cigarettes, in light of the fact it increases your chance of lung cancer exponentially, while marijuana has shown to decrease that chance?
I know there's something to be said for timing etc, and some might portray it as selfish in a way, in that it can detract from the team, but it was also giving in a way, as in, he conveyed a message not many people want to hear, despite the fact that imparting that message will cost him some money. Its a logical message that will be rejected by illogical people. Some people say there's a fine line between stupid and courageous, and many of you automatically throw this in the stupid category, but I think its closer to the middle than many of you will give him credit for. Again, I'm not taking a stance on him making those comments, but I will say the comments were thought provoking. Some of you sound like you'd prefer that he'd been dog-fighting.

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A03



The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

indygeezer
01-29-2008, 07:02 PM
I wanted to post the first part of the article linked below, because I'm sure many of you won't want to read it. I'm not saying I agree with David speaking out the way he did, and I'm not saying I disagree, but I'd like to know how many of you smoke cigarettes, in light of the fact it increases your chance of lung cancer exponentially, while marijuana has shown to decrease that chance?
I know there's something to be said for timing etc, and some might portray it as selfish in a way, in that it can detract from the team, but it was also giving in a way, as in, he conveyed a message not many people want to hear, despite the fact that imparting that message will cost him some money. Its a logical message that will be rejected by illogical people. Some people say there's a fine line between stupid and courageous, and many of you automatically throw this in the stupid category, but I think its closer to the middle than many of you will give him credit for. Again, I'm not taking a stance on him making those comments, but I will say the comments were thought provoking. Some of you sound like you'd prefer that he'd been dog-fighting.

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A03



The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.


BREAKING NEWS (This is for real)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326353,00.html

ABADays
01-29-2008, 07:14 PM
My premise was not for the pros or cons of either. It was merely to find out if Harrison was idiotic enough, completely clueless of time and situation, and, mindless enough of possible or probable repercussion of a perceived insult to have said this.

If it's true, leaving out a cigarette argument, we could possibly see one of the cons of toking.

high school hero
01-29-2008, 07:45 PM
My premise was not for the pros or cons of either. It was merely to find out if Harrison was idiotic enough, completely clueless of time and situation, and, mindless enough of possible or probable repercussion of a perceived insult to have said this.

If it's true, leaving out a cigarette argument, we could possibly see one of the cons of toking.


Since when is sharing knowledge that can benefit other people a "con"? Are you pro-knowledge or anti-knowledge? Are you pro-freedom or against? I'm not saying freedom as in everyone should be free to smoke pot. I'm saying freedom as in freedom of thought, freedom to have as much knowledge at our disposal as possible, as opposed to the government trying to cover things up that it has arbitrarily deemed "bad." The issue is getting as much truth on the table as possible, shedding pre-conceived notions, then making a rational decision. There has always been a government bias against marijuana research, and if it turns out to have healing properties, would you guys rather have loved ones die just to keep the government imposed charade of "right and wrong" alive? Do you think the government wants this kind of info out there? Why wouldn't the government want what is best for the people? Ahhh, that's right, their goal is re-election, not what's best for the people...
Never really had strong feelings on this issue one way or another, but I do know I want the truth, and I know the government does NOT want that.

ABADays
01-29-2008, 07:52 PM
Since when is sharing knowledge that can benefit other people a "con"? Are you pro-knowledge or anti-knowledge? Are you pro-freedom or against? I'm not saying freedom as in everyone should be free to smoke pot. I'm saying freedom as in freedom of thought, freedom to have as much knowledge at our disposal as possible, as opposed to the government trying to cover things up that it has arbitrarily deemed "bad." The issue is getting as much truth on the table as possible, shedding pre-conceived notions, then making a rational decision. There has always been a government bias against marijuana research, and if it turns out to have healing properties, would you guys rather have loved ones die just to keep the government imposed charade of "right and wrong" alive? Do you think the government wants this kind of info out there? Why wouldn't the government want what is best for the people? Ahhh, that's right, their goal is re-election, not what's best for the people...
Never really had strong feelings on this issue one way or another, but I do know I want the truth, and I know the government does NOT want that.

Please note "my premise". I don't believe I mentioned anything about the educational and informational benefits that appeared.

high school hero
01-29-2008, 08:18 PM
Please note "my premise". I don't believe I mentioned anything about the educational and informational benefits that appeared.

I did note your premise, and your premise amongst other things, includes finding out whether David was "idiotic" enough, etc... Well I guess what I'm saying is the statements aren't as idiotic as you make them out to be. I guess I'm asking you what about his statements was so idiotic? The "cat" was already half-way out of the bag. He had a forum that not many people get to have, and a message that does not necessarily bring bad information, but possibly helpful info. Is he an idiot because the majority of americans have arbitrarily deemed his statements to be bad/wrong? I hate to draw such an analogy, because the degree of wrongness is extreme, but was Rosa Parks an idiot? I'm sure many at the time would have told her "just take your seat at the back...its not worth it... you're an idiot if you fight what others have arbitrarily deemed wrong...." In hindsight, we consider Rosa to be brave, and we commend her for her courage to take a stand when it seemed like the idiotic thing to do. I'm not saying David is the next Rosa Parks by any means, but I do believe in the freedom of speech, and I don't think any of us are truly in a position to call him an idiot.

ABADays
01-29-2008, 08:34 PM
That's true. I forgot David was into Public Service Announcements. Ever notice how relaxed you are driving after you've had a few drinks. Just a PSA.

The mention of David Harrison and Rosa Parks in the same paragraph, or book for that matter is unnerving.

high school hero
01-29-2008, 11:13 PM
That's true. I forgot David was into Public Service Announcements. Ever notice how relaxed you are driving after you've had a few drinks. Just a PSA.

The mention of David Harrison and Rosa Parks in the same paragraph, or book for that matter is unnerving.


I'm disappointed that you'd lapse into straw men arguments. When did David say you should either drink or smoke pot and then drive? In fact, he explicitly said you should not do either.

Also, I tried my best to limit the comparisons between David and Rosa Parks. I admitted as much and said I'd only offer the comparison for a limited basis, because what she was standing for was on a much greater scale than what David was simply trying to point out (not even really fighting for, really). Had I not been so rushed, I would have used the example of Galileo. Nearly everyone accepted as true that everything revolved around the earth, not the sun. Ask a random joe on the street and they would have told you everything revolved around the earth, but they couldn't tell you why. That's just what they've been told, and that's what they accepted as true, and to suggest otherwise, even if you had evidence, was absurd. They actually locked him up for trying to convince people otherwise. I'm sure people called him crazy, called him an idiot, just as you've essentially called David. Fast forward from Galileo's time, lo and behold, Galileo was right. Evidence backed it up. The issue at hand isn't as important as Galileo's theory (or is it?), but what I'm trying to say is people call him an idiot now, rip him for this and that, create straw man arguments, but ten years from now people could be saying "Man, he was 100% right, I can't believe anyone even made a big deal about it. We were really living in the dark ages."
I'm sure people advised Galileo to shut his trap, but I'm guessing he thought it was so freakin absurd that so many people would blindly assume what they were told to be true, he needed to set them straight. David felt the need to challenge a widely held absurd belief. Also, to villainize him to the extent some people have is a little absurd, considering what he says is mostly true. I don't blame him for being frustrated. He explained why people shouldn't blow it out of proportion, and why it shouldn't be as big a deal as people have made it out to be. Some people agree, some don't, but he has the right to say his piece and deal with the consequences. I've yet to hear a reason wny he deserves to be called an idiot for what he said.

RamBo_Lamar
01-29-2008, 11:21 PM
I did note your premise, and your premise amongst other things, includes finding out whether David was "idiotic" enough, etc... Well I guess what I'm saying is the statements aren't as idiotic as you make them out to be. I guess I'm asking you what about his statements was so idiotic? The "cat" was already half-way out of the bag. He had a forum that not many people get to have, and a message that does not necessarily bring bad information, but possibly helpful info. Is he an idiot because the majority of americans have arbitrarily deemed his statements to be bad/wrong? I hate to draw such an analogy, because the degree of wrongness is extreme, but was Rosa Parks an idiot? I'm sure many at the time would have told her "just take your seat at the back...its not worth it... you're an idiot if you fight what others have arbitrarily deemed wrong...." In hindsight, we consider Rosa to be brave, and we commend her for her courage to take a stand when it seemed like the idiotic thing to do. I'm not saying David is the next Rosa Parks by any means, but I do believe in the freedom of speech, and I don't think any of us are truly in a position to call him an idiot.

As someone who has "partaken" once or twice ;) back in his day, I can
say that a part of me admires DH standing up for "the cause".

The problem though is that this is exactly the kind of nonsense the Pacers
do not need, and have been trying to steer away from. With the position
the Pacers are in, for him to go exacerbating the situation by running his
big mouth makes it sure seem that the success of the Pacers is not at the
top of his priority list. As a matter of fact, it's become clear to me that this
is a not so veiled way of saying "I WANT OUT" of Indy.

He probably feels slighted about not being offered the contract extension,
so is proceeding with an "I don't give a ****" attitude. He does want out
I beleive.

It is though easy to see how many would interpret his actions as idiotic,
especially Pacer fans tired of all the crap.

Anthem
01-30-2008, 01:27 AM
Great gravy. Why is he still on the team? Bird, show some freaking cajones and cut the guy.

high school hero
01-30-2008, 02:42 AM
As someone who has "partaken" once or twice ;) back in his day, I can
say that a part of me admires DH standing up for "the cause".

The problem though is that this is exactly the kind of nonsense the Pacers
do not need, and have been trying to steer away from. With the position
the Pacers are in, for him to go exacerbating the situation by running his
big mouth makes it sure seem that the success of the Pacers is not at the
top of his priority list. As a matter of fact, it's become clear to me that this
is a not so veiled way of saying "I WANT OUT" of Indy.

He probably feels slighted about not being offered the contract extension,
so is proceeding with an "I don't give a ****" attitude. He does want out
I beleive.

It is though easy to see how many would interpret his actions as idiotic,
especially Pacer fans tired of all the crap.


I can see how his conduct can be interpreted as saying "I want out of Indy," but it could also be that Indy has bought his one way ticket out and he has no say in the matter. It seems that he actually likes Indy. Who knows what is going on behind the scenes in this scenario, we'll probably never know. I'd imagine its frustrating for him to be vilified for doing something that is legal (according to state law) in California. Yes, many would say just keep your mouth shut and collect your paycheck, but sometimes keeping your mouth shut is just as bad as lying. More and more people every day are becoming cognizant of the fact that the illegality of marajuana is one of the most absurd laws on the books today, and bringing that fact to light with a good reason why its absurd (the cited study) seems pretty logical, and if people would be willing to listen with open minds, his statement could very well have lessened the blow of the incident. Maybe he should have counted on the fact that there aren't many open-minded people out there (true). But I see his reasoning, and I can't call him an idiot for that.

Robertmto
01-30-2008, 03:32 AM
Helped, past tense? Is Harrison no longer here?

he's currently crusin above clouds

RamBo_Lamar
01-30-2008, 09:58 AM
I can see how his conduct can be interpreted as saying "I want out of Indy," but it could also be that Indy has bought his one way ticket out and he has no say in the matter. It seems that he actually likes Indy. Who knows what is going on behind the scenes in this scenario, we'll probably never know. I'd imagine its frustrating for him to be vilified for doing something that is legal (according to state law) in California. Yes, many would say just keep your mouth shut and collect your paycheck, but sometimes keeping your mouth shut is just as bad as lying. More and more people every day are becoming cognizant of the fact that the illegality of marajuana is one of the most absurd laws on the books today, and bringing that fact to light with a good reason why its absurd (the cited study) seems pretty logical, and if people would be willing to listen with open minds, his statement could very well have lessened the blow of the incident. Maybe he should have counted on the fact that there aren't many open-minded people out there (true). But I see his reasoning, and I can't call him an idiot for that.


You make good points, however, I see them as slanted towards DH's best
interests first and foremost, rather than the Pacer's best interests.

Once again, this is exactly the sort of nonsense the Pacers absolutely do
not need or want. Any association whatsoever between the Pacers and
any illegal activities in any way, shape, or form, is detrimental, and in the
worst interest of the team. Period.

And you can bet DH as well as every other player and Pacer's employee
has had this made clear to them.

ABADays
01-30-2008, 12:41 PM
If I was David's agent I would have asked him just what the hell he was thinking. In the eyes of the fans he is already a bad apple and he has no contract beyond this season. I would tell him he is making it more and more difficult for me to make any kind of deal anywhere for him.

The Pacers don't need to put a muzzle on Harrison and I do think he, obviously, is an eloquent, smart guy. I would think he would have enough sense to see his own situation and just keep his mouth shut.

high school hero
01-30-2008, 12:56 PM
You make good points, however, I see them as slanted towards DH's best
interests first and foremost, rather than the Pacer's best interests.

Once again, this is exactly the sort of nonsense the Pacers absolutely do
not need or want. Any association whatsoever between the Pacers and
any illegal activities in any way, shape, or form, is detrimental, and in the
worst interest of the team. Period.

And you can bet DH as well as every other player and Pacer's employee
has had this made clear to them.

I see what you're saying, and I have no idea if the Pacers did or said something to make him mad, but note that he didn't immediately go to do a radio interview. Also note that he played in his first game back, had something like 4 points 2 boards a block and a steal in about 9 minutes. He was hustling and getting very good position for boards. One of the more inspired performances I've seen out of him. I was really surprised he didn't get more playing time that game. Maybe it was because he didn't get more PT and he thought he deserved it from his play, or maybe something else happened or was said, but it was 2 days later before his next game that he did the interview. I'm just trying to piece the puzzle together from where he goes from a work you butt off all hustle performance, to doing this interview two days later. I feel like there might be a piece of the puzzle missing, but who knows. If the Pacers did or said something after his first game back (not that they didn't have a right to) the interview would make even more sense.
I understand being associated with anything illegal, regardless of the absurdity of the law, isn't the best thing for the Pacers, but arguably, his infraction wasn't worse than Lebron driving 110 mph down the highway, and saying that he'll do it again (an act that is illegal). I know these two things are viewed totally differently, and the two teams are in two different situations right now, but realistically, I think many would say Lebron's actions were much more dangerous to society, and he certainly didn't sound sorry. I know he has a lot of good will built up, but I'm kind of surprised more wasn't said about his lack of concern for irresponsible behavior that could but his and other people's lives at risk, compared to David doing whatever in the privacy of his own home.
Again, as to David going from busting his butt his first game, to then giving this interview, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a piece to the puzzle missing that would make even more sense.